There's no "entitlement" (yay, more "dick quotes") involved here from fanboys.....and the whole notion of Ant-Man "fanboys" (yay, more) still makes me laugh my ass off. There ARE no Ant-Man fanboys. Never have been, at least until they started talking about a solo movie. Hank is a *member* of a *team.* First and foremost. Yeah, you can nitpick and say "technically, 'Astonishing Tales' yadda yadda and a few limited edition miniseries like 'Irredeemable' yadda yadda, but those represent only the tiniest fraction of Hank Pym's career, which otherwise is spent 99% on a team called Avengers....whether as Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Yellowjacket or whoever the hell else.

People keep talking about Ant-Man as an Avenger because he is a goddamn Avenger. Founder. Core Avenger. Mainstay. In 616, Ultimates, any damn version you want. So when Marvel Studios says "Avengers film" and "Ant-Man film," anyone who's read AT LEAST ONE ISSUE of Avengers knows damn well that they go together like peaches 'n' cream.

If Edgar Wright doesn't know this, or doesn't understand this, or wants to live in denial of this, then he's barking up the wrong tree. Feige knows damn well who Pym is, and that he belongs in The Avengers. That's why he's been pressuring Wright in interviews the past few weeks.

And all of that may blow up soon, if Feige isn't happy with how fast Wright is moving on the project, or if he thinks the project isn't going to dovetail into the MCU the way he wants it to. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear one of three things in the next couple of months:

a) Edgar Wright has left Ant-Man, because the studio is interfering with *his* vision of the character;
b) Edgar Wright has been fired by Marvel Studios, because his vision of the character is interfering with theirs;
or c) Marvel Studios has lit a fire under Edgar's ass, and Ant-Man will begin filming this fall.

There's no "entitlement" (yay, more "dick quotes") involved here from fanboys.....and the whole notion of Ant-Man "fanboys" (yay, more) still makes me laugh my ass off. There ARE no Ant-Man fanboys. Never have been, at least until they started talking about a solo movie. Hank is a *member* of a *team.* First and foremost. Yeah, you can nitpick and say "technically, 'Astonishing Tales' yadda yadda and a few limited edition miniseries like 'Irredeemable' yadda yadda, but those represent only the tiniest fraction of Hank Pym's career, which otherwise is spent 99% on a team called Avengers....whether as Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Yellowjacket or whoever the hell else.

People keep talking about Ant-Man as an Avenger because he is a goddamn Avenger. Founder. Core Avenger. Mainstay. In 616, Ultimates, any damn version you want. So when Marvel Studios says "Avengers film" and "Ant-Man film," anyone who's read AT LEAST ONE ISSUE of Avengers knows damn well that they go together like peaches 'n' cream.

If Edgar Wright doesn't know this, or doesn't understand this, or wants to live in denial of this, then he's barking up the wrong tree. Feige knows damn well who Pym is, and that he belongs in The Avengers. That's why he's been pressuring Wright in interviews the past few weeks.

And all of that may blow up soon, if Feige isn't happy with how fast Wright is moving on the project, or if he thinks the project isn't going to dovetail into the MCU the way he wants it to. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear one of three things in the next couple of months:

a) Edgar Wright has left Ant-Man, because the studio is interfering with *his* vision of the character;
b) Edgar Wright has been fired by Marvel Studios, because his vision of the character is interfering with theirs;
or c) Marvel Studios has lit a fire under Edgar's ass, and Ant-Man will begin filming this fall.

You establish precedent, and use that as the only reason something should happen. That, my friend is entitlement, no quotation marks. (Also note, I stopped doing that once it was pointed out to me.) Anyone who doesn't see it your way (Wright) is ignorant or in denial, they can't possibly see it differently, the can't possibly have preferred the hundreds of Avengers stories where Ant-Man doesn't appear. They can't possibly have read those stories and thought they'd have been better without Ant-Man, or without the rest of the Avengers. That's entitlement.

And this idea that Feige is against it is just wishful thinking, perhaps projection. "He has to see things the way I see them." Entitlement? If you have links to any of these pressuring interviews, I'd love to see them, but you may need to accept that Feige and Marvel Studios are behind this non-MCU standalone Ant-Man. Or not. Perhaps you'll just be surprised that the Avengers will continue to go on without him, and Ant-Man will become able to support his own solo storyline for the first time in a long time.

You establish precedent, and use that as the only reason something should happen. That, my friend is entitlement, no quotation marks. (Also note, I stopped doing that once it was pointed out to me.) Anyone who doesn't see it your way (Wright) is ignorant or in denial, they can't possibly see it differently, the can't possibly have preferred the hundreds of Avengers stories where Ant-Man doesn't appear. They can't possibly have read those stories and thought they'd have been better without Ant-Man, or without the rest of the Avengers. That's entitlement.

And this idea that Feige is against it is just wishful thinking, perhaps projection. "He has to see things the way I see them." Entitlement? If you have links to any of these pressuring interviews, I'd love to see them, but you may need to accept that Feige and Marvel Studios are behind this non-MCU standalone Ant-Man. Or not. Perhaps you'll just be surprised that the Avengers will continue to go on without him, and Ant-Man will become able to support his own solo storyline for the first time in a long time.

Sure, it's possible. But highly unlikely. On several counts.

1) Because of the pressure to "authenticate" the Avengers by steering closer to comic-book canon.

2) Because Wright's version of the story has languished so long in development hell that it's become hopelessly outdated. When Wright first took on the project in 06, the Avengers Initiative in the MCU --- and, in fact, the MCU itself --- did not exist, not even on paper. Comic book films back then were still in the standalone business, and even the Avengers film originally was to be a standalone with no crossover plans....just a superteam movie to compete with the planned JLA movie from Warners (which, of course, never materialized). Since then, of course, the Avengers *have* crossed over, and the notion of standalone films has become outdated and unpopular in the MCU shared universe.

3) Because Ant-Man is highly unlikely to be a successful standalone franchise. To general audiences, it would be a curiosity at best, a thing of ridicule or parody at worst....they wouldn't even understand why the film was even made. Fanboys, of course, *would* understand why it was being made....and would be righteously indignant hurr-durr that Ant-Man isn't "properly" in the Avengers. As we've already seen.

It's a new era. Standalones don't make sense in the shared universe of the MCU anymore. And they make even *less* sense when you take a character who is noted for being part of a team and try to make him into a solo character --- who is no longer part of that team he's always been associated with. It's like Cyclops minus the X-Men. Beast Boy minus the Teen Titans. BA Baracus minus the A-Team. "Bones" McCoy minus the crew of the Enterprise.

1) Because of the pressure to "authenticate" the Avengers by steering closer to comic-book canon.

What is this pressure? Where does it come from? Who expresses it? Where is it felt?

Quote:

2) Because Wright's version of the story has languished so long in development hell that it's become hopelessly outdated. When Wright first took on the project in 06, the Avengers Initiative in the MCU --- and, in fact, the MCU itself --- did not exist, not even on paper. Comic book films back then were still in the standalone business, and even the Avengers film originally was to be a standalone with no crossover plans....just a superteam movie to compete with the planned JLA movie from Warners (which, of course, never materialized). Since then, of course, the Avengers *have* crossed over, and the notion of standalone films has become outdated and unpopular in the MCU shared universe.

Whoa. Comicbook films are still very much in the standalone business. It's no more outdated than Batman, Spider-Man or Superman's movies - they haven't come out yet, so how can they be outdated.

Notice how you say a movie notion is unpopular in a fictional universe. That's a pretty good example about how you're not really thinking about reality, but you believe that something fictional has an effect on the popularity of something real.

Quote:

3) Because Ant-Man is highly unlikely to be a successful standalone franchise. To general audiences, it would be a curiosity at best, a thing of ridicule or parody at worst....they wouldn't even understand why the film was even made. Fanboys, of course, *would* understand why it was being made....and would be righteously indignant hurr-durr that Ant-Man isn't "properly" in the Avengers. As we've already seen.

So... the audience would laugh at him in a solo movie, but think he's cool in a team up movie, surrounded by non-laughable superheroes?

I think this opinion shows that you don't understand Edgar Wright, and illustrates why you are so confused that MS is behind him on this. He makes great movies. Period. It's what he does. He doesn't make okay movies. He doesn't even make good movies. He does make movies that people don't generally go see, but the ones that do... dude. People will come see it, and love it, just on his involvement. Very, very few other directors can make that happen.

And what's the alternative? Bring him into Avengers to take up screen time so the general audience can laugh and point and wonder why this waste of space is there?

Quote:

It's a new era. Standalones don't make sense in the shared universe of the MCU anymore. And they make even *less* sense when you take a character who is noted for being part of a team and try to make him into a solo character --- who is no longer part of that team he's always been associated with. It's like Cyclops minus the X-Men. Beast Boy minus the Teen Titans. BA Baracus minus the A-Team. "Bones" McCoy minus the crew of the Enterprise.

Standalones will continue to make money and entertain. Why you think they don't make sense is beyond me. They make as much sense as any movie ever made. And your examples, of characters who did not start out solo, and have never been solo is just silly. I'm sorry that you don't see the potential in Ant-Man that Edgar Wright does. He's a great and interesting character, who deserves a full movie to explore all the immense complexities of his psyche and his powers. Not to have some anemic version of him shoved into a team up movie that barely has time to have a story with the characters it already has in it.

What is this pressure? Where does it come from? Who expresses it? Where is it felt?

From the fans, and from Marvel themselves.
Feige is in the business of making Marvel work in a new media. There may come a day in the not too distant future in which Marvel characters are known primarily through film and television and video games rather than through comic books; because face it, even with all the beaucoup box office a lot of these CBMs get, it's not helping to generate new sales for the comics at all.

The latest draft that Cornish turned in of Ant-Man back in December was the *fourth,* by his own reckoning. That means that the *studio* -- i.e., Feige --- keeps sending Cornish back to the drawing board to get the character and the story right. Feige has no intention of letting writers or directors make "In Name Only" characters in the MCU, which has been a problem with properties licensed to other studios.

Quote:

Whoa. Comicbook films are still very much in the standalone business. It's no more outdated than Batman, Spider-Man or Superman's movies - they haven't come out yet, so how can they be outdated.

Notice how you say a movie notion is unpopular in a fictional universe. That's a pretty good example about how you're not really thinking about reality, but you believe that something fictional has an effect on the popularity of something real.

The shared universe has been something that fans have been asking for for decades. Ever since Burton, ever since Donner. Fans and studios and directors have clashed over it since the 70s. Nolan's concept is the outdated one --- that these heroes need to exist separately from each other, that audiences simply wouldn't buy into a "true" superhero universe with *lots* of men in tights flying around shooting at each other with laser beams out of their asses. "X-Men" and "Heroes" and "Fantastic Four" and "Smallville" have already gone to great lengths to disprove that notion, and "Avengers" is the final nail in that particular coffin.

The question asked before 2012 was "how come these superheroes can't exist in the same universe?" Going forward, the question will be, "How come you left this particular superhero out of the shared universe? Is he not good enough or something?"

Quote:

So... the audience would laugh at him in a solo movie, but think he's cool in a team up movie, surrounded by non-laughable superheroes?

No, they'd think he's "cool" in a team-up movie when he's shown as part of the team he's always been associated with. Ant-Man is an Avenger: what part of that do you *still* not understand....? Ant-Man is not a solo performer. Period.

Quote:

I think this opinion shows that you don't understand Edgar Wright, and illustrates why you are so confused that MS is behind him on this. He makes great movies. Period. It's what he does. He doesn't make okay movies. He doesn't even make good movies. He does make movies that people don't generally go see, but the ones that do... dude. People will come see it, and love it, just on his involvement. Very, very few other directors can make that happen.

If he makes movies that people don't generally go see, do you think that's a great selling point for Kevin Feige right now....? Marvel Studios is in the business of making money for their properties. We can debate the evils of capitalism and greed versus artistic vision for generations to come, but Marvel Studios has made it plain that they're not interested in an auteur placing his (or her) visionary stamp on their properties --- they're *only* interested in generating a large and loyal fanbase for their superhero movies.

Quote:

And what's the alternative? Bring him into Avengers to take up screen time so the general audience can laugh and point and wonder why this waste of space is there?

Standalones will continue to make money and entertain. Why you think they don't make sense is beyond me. They make as much sense as any movie ever made. And your examples, of characters who did not start out solo, and have never been solo is just silly. I'm sorry that you don't see the potential in Ant-Man that Edgar Wright does. He's a great and interesting character, who deserves a full movie to explore all the immense complexities of his psyche and his powers. Not to have some anemic version of him shoved into a team up movie that barely has time to have a story with the characters it already has in it.

Again: he's an Avenger. Avenger.
Taking a character who is known virtually entirely as the member of a particular team and trying to spinoff a solo title when he hasn't even been shown on that team in the first place....*that's* what doesn't make sense.

Again: he's an Avenger. Avenger.
Taking a character who is known virtually entirely as the member of a particular team and trying to spinoff a solo title when he hasn't even been shown on that team in the first place....*that's* what doesn't make sense.

I cut out most of my reply cuz it's off topic. We're having this same debate on different levels in different threads.

Long story short. It makes money. It entertains. Just because it's not classic Avengers doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, bro. The audience doesn't associate Ant-Man with Avengers, so they will still think he's just was silly in a team setting, and that the whole movie is better off without him. You'd be doing a horrible disservice to the character. You're thinking comics continuity is supreme, and it's just not. You're dedicated to it, you see it, and talk about it as reality, like anyone who disagrees must be ignorant, not disagreeing about it's importance and relevance, but I just don't "get it" because I don't agree with you. There must be something wrong with my comprehension. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvermoth

I reckon Elijah Kelley (Red Tails, Hairspray) would make an awesome Black Panther. He's young and a great actor but has alot of presense and can easily carry a movie.

I like him. He is a little short, but I don't think that has to be a huge problem, depending on how the rest of the casting goes.

^I always go back and forth on that. Black Panther's origin doesn't make a lot of sense for a real grown man ala Idris Elba or Chewitel Ejiofor, but then if you go young ala Aldis Hodge or Elijah Kelley or whoever, you lose some gravitas.

I mean, you can have that be his weakness/balance, even though he is this uber fighter, with uber tech, uber science skills, uber leadership, he's still young and impetuous or whatever. I dunno... what do you think?

I'm fine with a younger actor if he looks more mature than his actual age, but Elijah Kelly still fits in the high school/college kid age visually. Hodge looks a bit more mature so I think he'd be decent; but Djimon Hounsou is my Black Panther, he's only a year older than RDJ and no offense to BP, but I don't see much more than one solo movie, I see him more of an Avengers member.

I cut out most of my reply cuz it's off topic. We're having this same debate on different levels in different threads.

Long story short. It makes money. It entertains. Just because it's not classic Avengers doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, bro. The audience doesn't associate Ant-Man with Avengers, so they will still think he's just was silly in a team setting, and that the whole movie is better off without him. You'd be doing a horrible disservice to the character. You're thinking comics continuity is supreme, and it's just not. You're dedicated to it, you see it, and talk about it as reality, like anyone who disagrees must be ignorant, not disagreeing about it's importance and relevance, but I just don't "get it" because I don't agree with you. There must be something wrong with my comprehension. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't worship comics continuity, and I don't think anyone who disagrees with continuity is ignorant, nor am I opposed to the film universe trying something different than the comic universe. But I think there's different levels of "nerdrage" --- I sure as hell don't get bent out of shape over minor things ("omg they used the wrong shade of mauve on MegaPerson's leotard! "), but I'm afraid I have to take issue with turning a team character into a solo character, and potentially even *separating* him from the team he has always belonged to. That seems like a major change to the character's identity, don't you think?

I think the problem comes in the way people perceive what the Avengers mean as a franchise. The Avengers *movie* franchise seems to treat the team as a sort of All-Star team, or Olympic Dream Team --- a crossover of different heroes coming together for something special every few years or so, then quietly going back to their own lives in the times in-between. The comic-book Avengers is not like that at all....it's simply another Marvel title. Monthly subscription, same as Spider-Man or Hulk or Wolverine or X-Men. And as such, there are a whole bunch of Avengers who are associated *primarily* with that title ("exclusively" might be a better descriptor). Those characters would include Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne, Scott Lang, Wonder Man, Vision, Jocasta, Hawkeye, Tigra, Mockingbird, Doctor Druid, Echo, and Firebird.

I think the problem comes in the way people perceive what the Avengers mean as a franchise. The Avengers *movie* franchise seems to treat the team as a sort of All-Star team, or Olympic Dream Team --- a crossover of different heroes coming together for something special every few years or so, then quietly going back to their own lives in the times in-between. The comic-book Avengers is not like that at all....it's simply another Marvel title. Monthly subscription, same as Spider-Man or Hulk or Wolverine or X-Men. And as such, there are a whole bunch of Avengers who are associated *primarily* with that title ("exclusively" might be a better descriptor). Those characters would include Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne, Scott Lang, Wonder Man, Vision, Jocasta, Hawkeye, Tigra, Mockingbird, Doctor Druid, Echo, and Firebird.

That's what it is. It *is* an All-Star team. When something runs for decades and decades it will naturally morph into something else. But the core concept of the Avengers is that it's an All-Star team, and when you've only got like three movies you can stick to that concept without it getting stale. The same is not the case when you have a monthly series that runs for years.

That's what it is. It *is* an All-Star team. When something runs for decades and decades it will naturally morph into something else. But the core concept of the Avengers is that it's an All-Star team, and when you've only got like three movies you can stick to that concept without it getting stale. The same is not the case when you have a monthly series that runs for years.

No, Avengers *isn't* an All-Star team. It certainly wasn't in the comics, and it's hard to call it that even in the MCU, where only Tony and Cap could be considered "all-stars" known by the general public prior to the Avengers Assemblin'.

DC did the JLA up like an all-star team. But Marvel didn't quite follow in those footsteps, choosing instead to make a *bunch* of superteams --- Avengers, X-Men, Defenders, Great Lakes Avengers, Thunderbolts, Runaways, Fantastic Four, Midnight Sons, Invaders, Heroes for Hire, Eternals, Inhumans, Nova Corps, Guardians of the Galaxy, New Warriors, and a seemingly infinite number of X-Men spinoffs. Sooner or later, every hero (and villain) got a chance to get a membership card in one or more of those groups. Yeah, Avengers proper was probably the most prestigious club you could belong to, but they had *plenty* of no-names on the roster, and plenty of *big* names that never joined at all (or at least in anything more than an honorary "Avenger for a Day" role).

I also disagree with you and others about the shelf life of the Avengers as a movie franchise. You seem to think that the whole genre is going to go belly-up in about a decade, so Marvel needs to just cram everything in to some quick wham-bam-thankya-ma'am trilogies and be done with it. But you only need to look at film history *and* comic book history to see that these characters have LONG-lasting appeal....their lives are measured in decades, not years.

Sure it may not be that way in the comics, nor is it the reason how it started, however it was a minor change in adaptation from pages to screen in which I don't find it hurting or benefiting the comics, nor was it disrespectful.

Cap, Thor, and Iron Man are the *all stars* of the MCU because they're really the only heroes who have movies outside of Avengers that are ownd by Marvel Studios; Avengers came and now opened up a door for more heroes to have solo movies or appear in future Avengers movies as team members. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's an *all star* team for the moment simply because Marvel Studios doesn't own the film copyright for Marvel Comics' other more popular team properties. With that said, I can see Marvel Studios pursuing other team flicks, but Avengers is their *all star* team property for the moment. It's the business part of copyrights minorly affecting the movies.

I do agree that there is no limit for the Avengers franchise; maybe some actors over time, but that's it really.

Like I said, it became something else. The idea of a team-up is only original for so long, and eventually a long running comic needs more to flesh out. But that very first issue took characters from their own stories, put them together in one, and put all of the characters' names in large letters on the cover. It was an all-star team-up.

Avengers may not have a shelf-life, but this iteration of Avengers with this group of actors and this director certainly does. They aren't going to do it forever. I doubt any of these people will be involved beyond Avengers 3. I would rather get a full arc that gives these characters their due and really resonates with viewers accordingly than toss in extra characters because they were swell in the comics.

Kate Hudson would make a cool Ms Marvel. I'm just reading up on her last series and she really strikes me as a good fit. She's strong and cool enough and the great thing about Ms Marvel is she's sort of a bit of a mother hen and confidant for the other Avengers. If Cap, Steve and Thor are the big three, arguably Ms Marvel is #4.